Theory Definition of Suspension Derivatives: Camber Angle, (Deg)
Theory Definition of Suspension Derivatives: Camber Angle, (Deg)
Introduction
A large number of ‘suspension derivatives’ are calculated by ‘SHARK’, some are given at the static
ride height only, whilst the variation with articulation is determined for others. The definition of these
derivatives is given in this section and are based upon the SAE standard ‘Vehicle Dynamics
Terminology’ SAE J670e. Where variations from this standard exist or where specific Lotus
standards have been applied these will be identified. The units used together with the sign
convention are also stated. The calculation formulae are given in terms of both the Shark
co-ordinate system and point numbering system.
Static Values
Damper Ratio
The ratio of change in the vertical height of the tyre contact centre and the change in length of the
damper. It has no sign convention and would be greater than one when the change in vertical height
of the wheel is more than the change in length of the damper. (Lotus definition).
Spring Ratio
The ratio of change in the vertical height of the tyre contact centre and the change in length of the
spring. It has no sign convention and would be greater than one when the change in vertical height
of the wheel is more than the change in length of the spring. (Lotus definition).
% Anti-Dive Derivation
Ackermann, (%)
The ratio, given as a percentage, of the actual steer angles compared to those required for zero
scrub. (Lotus Definition)
% Ackermann Definition
Description:
Two optional steering box types are available in the latest version of Shark. By hanging to
a ‘steering box’ you do not add any extra parts, you just change how the steering motion is
applied to the model. Most importantly the steering motion is no longer assumed to be
defined in linear translation of the inner track rod joint (mm), but is now assumed to be the
rotation of the steering box about its axis (degrees). The difference between the two is
whether the inner track rod ball joint is attached to a common cross rail or the steering
arms.
Theory – The Anti Roll Bar Model
Description:
The anti-roll bar added via the default menu adds four new parts, two “Drop Links” and
the anti-roll bar itself made up of two separate “Roll Bar Parts”. The two roll bar parts are
connected together via a ‘tagged’ point. In compliance this tagged point is treated as a
revolute joint being given the defined roll bar stiffness. In total 11 new points are added to
the template. The roll bar joint mentioned above, four new C of G points (one for each
new part), the two defined attachment points of the drop link to the selected part, the
attachment points of the drop link to the roll bar ends, (placed directly above the defined
attachment points) and the two roll bar mounts. The roll bar mounts connect the roll bar
to ground, (this is the same as the vehicle body). All of the points are solved in post
solution forms, (vector pos and Hookes joint), such that no additional equations are added
to the kinematic solution. Thus they do not contribute or control the kinematic motion.
Theory – The Compliant Hub Model
Description:
The ‘Add compliant hub’ option provides a simple menu selection route to including hub
compliance into the existing models template. It adds a new part, the ‘wheel/Hub’ between
the upright and ground. Two new points are added one for the new parts C of G position
and the other for the connection point. The compliant hub is modelled with a single bush,
rather than the more physical two bushes (i.e. the inner and outer bearings), as typical
know hub compliance values are usually measured as a single stiffness number. In
compliance mode if no bush stiffness values are provided the default‘Stiff’ values are
applied to both axial and rotational stiffnesses. As part of the template modification
performed by this option the Wheel centre point and stub axles points properties are
changed such that they are associated with the new ‘hub’ part rather than the original ‘
upright’ part.
Theory – The Slotted Joint
The image below illustrates how the slotted joint makes use of a Hookes’ joint type spider
added to the model to act as the connecting part and provide the necessary rotation
restriction between the upright and the steering arm. The orientation of the slot can be
controlled by the two points ‘Slot Normal1’ and ‘Slot Upper’. The ‘Slot Normal2’ point is
defined by a function that uses the two other axis points to align it and thus is
repositioned automatically when you change the ‘Slot Normal1’ point.
The extra marker point ‘Slot Marker’ is added attached to the steering arm but initially
positioned at the same co-ordinates as the ‘slot upper’ point to provide the necessary post
processing ball joint rotation targets. To display the joint such that its slot travel can be
displayed the parts and markers should be set up as indicated in the figure below.
A typical display should then look as indicated below for the outer ball joint. With motion being
constrained to be linear along the slot direction.
Theory – The Two Part Steering Rack Model
Description:
The two-part rack adds two new parts, the “Rack Link” and the “Rack Body”. The rack
link slides within the rack body through two connections that are tagged in the template as
‘Rack Mount Point’ and ‘Rack Lateral Mount Point’. Being tagged the solver
automatically applies suitable stiffness numbers to them to replicate sliders. The‘rack
lateral stiffness’ is applied to the one tagged as the Lateral mount point. The rack body is
then connected to ground through two further bush connections, which if undefined, are
set to the ‘rigid’ stiffness value in x, y and Z. The Rack link part is connected via ball joints
to the two track-rods at the inner ball joint positions.
Theory – Leaf Spring Modelling
To achieve the required kinematic spring shape with bump travel an adaptive length
control element is applied. This senses the change in length between two markers and
applies a controlling change in length to the enforced distance between two other markers.
In the case of the leaf spring model the control element senses the change in length
between the spring rear eye and a point on the axle part and applies a change in length to
the distance between the front spring eye and a point on the axle part. The relationship
between sensed length and changed length is a user definable look-up table that allows the
required kinematic deformed shape to be achieved under bump displacement.
Because of the solution delay in detect/sense this produces on coarse step size a degree of ‘
staircasing’. An alternative approach is available that just uses the z-displacement of a
point as the transducer variable, (this will still work with roll). One advantage of this
approach is that the stable kinematic solution leads to a better calculation of the roll centre
migration.
The compliant characteristics of the leaf spring are modelled using the bush rotational
stiffness and bush pre-loads at the two joint points. Other spring points such as the eye and
hanger points are modelled as compliant bushes in the normal way. The limitation of this is
that currently the rotational stiffness can only be a linear value, which is limiting when
considering multi-leaf springs. The other issue is that the use of the bush pre-load to
represent spring loads in the system means that for the as built system, there is no
rotations and hence no bush pre-load. Initial pre-loads can’t be defined as non-zero they
are only determined by rotation from static build position.
This pre-load issue can be overcome by building the model at some free condition such
that the static ride point is at ‘x’ mm of bump travel rather than 0 mm.
Data Requirements – Type 1: Double Wishbone, Damper to Lower
Wishbone
Point 9: Part 1 C of G.
Data Requirements – Type 12: Steerable Twin Parallel Wishbones and
Knuckle
Type 22 Double wishbone, twin outer ball joints, spring to front link.